Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. signed a drilling contract with Swift Energy Co. on July 27, 2000. Though the contract originally covered the Kana No. 1-H well in Fayette County, in December 2000, the parties agreed to extend the contract’s terms to the “Post #1″ well in Goliad County. The contract included a paragraph on responsibility for loss or damage, indemnity, release of liability and allocation of risk. This paragraph, 14.11, states that Helmerich shall assume responsibility for actions described in other paragraphs and shall protect and indemnify Swift from and against all claims arising from pollution or contamination. The contract also included a paragraph 13, dealing with Helmerich’s obligation to maintain a comprehensive general liability insurance policy that included Swift as an additional insured. Exhibits attached to the contract showed where pollution coverage was required, but they did not state what the deductible should be or who was responsible for paying the deductible. Helmerich acquired a policy from American Home Assurance Co. that met these requirements. While working on the Post No. 1 well, drilling fluids spilled into the surrounding field. Swift paid for the cleanup, which cost $155,078. Swift made a claim under the comprehensive general liability policy, but American denied the claim because it said the claim fell within the $750,000 deductible per occurrence for pollution claims. Helmerich refused to reimburse Swift for the cost of the cleanup. Helmerich instead sued for a declaratory judgment that the drilling contract allocated responsibility for all claims and damages resulting from the flow or spill of drilling fluids to Swift, that the contract precluded Swift from recovering the costs, and that Swift must defend and indemnify Helmerich in any action to recover costs. Swift filed a counterclaim for breach of contract based on Helmerich’s refusal to honor its purported obligation to reimburse Swift for the costs of the cleanup. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted Swift’s motion and denied Helmerich’s motion, awarding Swift actual damages, attorneys’ fees, court costs, prejudgment interest and postjudgment interest. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded in part; reversed and rendered in part. The court points out that neither party argues that the policy is ambiguous. The court agrees that it is not ambiguous and also concludes that there is only one reasonable interpretation of the contract with respect to the issues raised in this case. The court notes that though Swift alleges that Helmerich breached a contract by refusing to reimburse Swift, Swift does not specify which contract � the drilling contract or the insurance policy � Helmerich breached. The court assumes that Swift is arguing that the insurance policy was breached, but in the alternative, that the drilling contract was breached. Presuming, without deciding, that there is no general impediment to an additional insured under an insurance policy suing a named insured for payment of the policy deductible, Swift still would have to base its breach-of-contract claim on language in the insurance that creates a contractual obligation for Helmerich to reimburse Swift for covered claims that are within the policy deductible. The court finds no such language in the insurance policy. The policy does not state that all deductibles should be Helmerich’s sole obligation. The court then again presumes without deciding that the language in paragraph 13 of the drilling contract, by itself, would impose an implied obligation on Helmerich to reimburse Swift for the costs. Even so, the court notes that in 14.11, there is language that says, “notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in paragraph 13 of the Drilling Contract, Swift releases, assumes all responsibility for, and shall protect, defend, and indemnify [Helmerich] from an against all claims of every kind and character arising, directly or indirectly, from pollution or contamination [.]“ The court finds that when parties use the “notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein” clause, they are contemplating the possibility that other parts of their contract may conflict with that particular paragraph, and that they agree that this paragraph must be given effect regardless of any contrary provision. Accordingly, the court concludes that, under the unambiguous language in the drilling contract, Swift has released Helmerich from any obligation to pay the costs, assumed all responsibility for the costs and indemnified Helmerich against all claims of every kind and character arising, directly or indirectly, from pollution or contamination that gave rise to the costs. The court disagrees with Swift that construing paragraph 14.11 to preclude Swift’s right to reimbursement for costs under paragraph 13 would render paragraph 13 meaningless. The court also rejects Swift’s reliance on several cases, none of which involve issues of contract construction that are in this case � none have a provision with a notwithstanding clause. Reliance on other cases is misplaced, too, the court says, because those cases involved reconciliation of an insurance contract and an operating contract. Here, the parties agreed through the language used that conflicts between paragraph 14.11 and paragraph 13 would be resolved by making paragraph 14.11 controlling. “We must enforce the Drilling Contract as written; we cannot question the wisdom of the parties’ agreement or rewrite the relevant provisions under the guise of interpretation.” The court explains that the trial court erred in granting Swift’s motion for summary judgment and denying Helmerich’s. The court renders judgment for Helmerich, and remands for consideration of Helmerich’s request for attorneys’ fees. OPINION:Frost, J.; Hedges, Fowler and Frost, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.